Fabia 1.6 CR TDI 90bhp appalling fuel consumption

[Guest]

Alan, Fatbloke...yes you are both correct, it's everything! The engines are very tight, and the engine also wears in to produce more power too. Combine the two things and if you run it in correctly you will have a very economical engine and a very powerful one. By the way...if you don't load up your engine to wear the rings in during the first 1000 or so miles (which actually has to involves enough load and revs to cause metal to metal contact!), the engine will never ever run in properly and the bores just glaze. This can result in early engine failure such as broken piston rings etc.

[xman]

.if you don't load up your engine to wear the rings in during the first 1000 or so miles (which actually has to involves enough load and revs to cause metal to metal contact!), the engine will never ever run in properly and the bores just glaze. This can result in early engine failure such as broken piston rings etc.

metal to metal contact? dont think so.....

[Guest]

metal to metal contact? dont think so.....

Do some reading bud! Metal to metal contact in a controlled way is essential to the process. If it doesn't happen the engine never runs in. How else do you think an engine can run in? Engines have to bed in, and the pistons and rings must make metal to metal contact to 'knock off' the high spots in the bores. Do it too fast and the engine will be damaged, do it too slowly and the engine will be damaged. We are talking about very small amounts of contact at anyone time, but enough to take the peaks of the high spots in the bores and allow the rings to get closer to the bores and make a better seal. This process takes time. The oil protects very well these days and prevents the rings contacting the bores in any large meaningful way during running in, so unless you give it some real load at appropriate times, no metal to metal contact takes place and the engine never runs in. Do an internet search on running in your engine and you will see what we mean.

[threadbear]

So are we saying that is okay to run a new TDi CR at 3000 rpm? At present Ive only gone up to the rev range when accelerating through the gears and the car flys.

Im finding this running in melarkey a bit confusing

Regards

Grahame,

[Guest]

Hi threadbear,

Don't worry about this process too much. Just follow the instructions (quite detailed in my manual for my bike and Skoda) and you won't go wrong. In fact, many drivers, particularly the fleet car drivers don't even bother with the process much. The car is still ok...but it's not really the best way to start the engines life, especially if you want to keep the car for several years without problems.

Engines need running in to finish off the smoothing and finishing of the internal engine parts which can be quite rough still. Metal to metal contact is how this happens and this causes considerable extra heat and friction. Some of these parts are quite rough purposely (cylinder bores have cross hatching left on them to aid the bedding in process) and need smoothing and work hardening by the engine heat and pressure exerted on them. A bearing surfaces for example such as the cylinder bores. The main thing is to avoid extremes of operation in the early miles. Don't go on any economy drives during running in as light foot constant speed driving causes glazing of the bores. Instead...once the engine is warmed up use the gearbox freely, vary the revs and load on the engine. As you cover more miles increase the revs and load further and maintain this load longer. Remember, that 'running in' really only happens once the engine oil is at FULL WORKING TEMPERATURE when the engine finds it easier to breach the oil film covering the microscopic roughness and peaks of metal in the cylinders. These are the things that really make a difference to the way the engine beds in. You need the piston rings to be pushed out firmly onto the cylinder bores to start wearing off that microscopic roughness in the bores. But it must happen in stages not all at once in the early miles or the engine will 'rub off' too much metal all at once under very heavy throttle settings. This may cause the engine to use oil later on in life and performance won't be as good.

After all, for most of us buying a new car is a very expensive business. Taking the time to learn the correct technique is common sense, as the engine will be faster and more economical and mechanically quieter and more reliable too.

Sorry to Mike for us bumping his thread.

Edited 27 October, 2010 by Estate Man

[raisbeck]

After all, for most of us buying a new car is a very expensive business. Taking the time to learn the correct technique is common sense, as the engine will be faster and more economical and mechanically quieter and more reliable too.

These VAG diesels are a safe bet really as far as running in goes. I bought mine and just got in and drove pretty much normally. Just didnt thrash it or labour it. Its now definitely looser, much more free running and doesnt use engine oil........or much fuel for that matter

Running in is just common sense really. New engines are built to fine tolerances and dont suffer so much from the inaccurate machining of old. I wouldnt lose any sleep over it.

Old type engines needed a different approach. Sorry to bring in aviation again but its what I know best. On the older petrol powered lycoming and continental piston engines we used a lesser (poorer) grade of oil that contained no detergents or special properties when running in pistons/cylinders. It used this for 50 hours running and you had to thrash the engine hard or the bores got glazed and the cylinders lost their compression....back to square one. Same thing happened if you used decent oil instead of the running in stuff. Metal to metal contact was a must :p

Returning to the original posting. These CR engines are going to have to improve one heck of a lot when run in to be getting the mpg figures people have a right to expect. I will cross my fingers for them as I quite fancy a CR engine in the future as they are so much smoother. I like mine, but then I quite like the rattle of a diesel.

[Guest]

I like mine, but then I quite like the rattle of a diesel.

Sounds just like a proper diesel eh! My old Truimph Trophy 900cc 3 cylinder used mineral oil for the first 1000miles then fully synthetic. Those engines ran in a treat.

[MikeHart]

These VAG diesels are a safe bet really as far as running in goes. I bought mine and just got in and drove pretty much normally. Just didnt thrash it or labour it. Its now definitely looser, much more free running and doesnt use engine oil........or much fuel for that matter

Running in is just common sense really. New engines are built to fine tolerances and dont suffer so much from the inaccurate machining of old. I wouldnt lose any sleep over it.

Old type engines needed a different approach. Sorry to bring in aviation again but its what I know best. On the older petrol powered lycoming and continental piston engines we used a lesser (poorer) grade of oil that contained no detergents or special properties when running in pistons/cylinders. It used this for 50 hours running and you had to thrash the engine hard or the bores got glazed and the cylinders lost their compression....back to square one. Same thing happened if you used decent oil instead of the running in stuff. Metal to metal contact was a must :p

Returning to the original posting. These CR engines are going to have to improve one heck of a lot when run in to be getting the mpg figures people have a right to expect. I will cross my fingers for them as I quite fancy a CR engine in the future as they are so much smoother. I like mine, but then I quite like the rattle of a diesel.

Many thanks to everyone for their replies. As you say, they're going to have to improve an awful lot to get anywhere near what people expect to get and to improve beyond the previous generation. Personally, my car is current being looked at by the dealership and I'm considering 'backing it'. The mpg isn't getting any better (if anything worse) over the now 1500 miles and I'm not prepared to wait 10 or even 20,000 miles for it to get to their stated mpg. I know I can buy other cars that will do the mpg pretty much from day 1, my old Yaris included. Until they can make these diesels do the mpg within a sensible time of purchase (certainly no more than 5,000 miles), the claims are simply a con in my opinion. Promising something that will happen in the future is all well and good, but if it never happens, what does the customer do? In the meantime, I'm paying ever more for the diesel that, according to them, I shouldn't be buying. Unless a fault can be found and the mpg goes into the 50's, looks like I'm destined to be disappointed with the Skoda. Then, it'll be interesting seeing how they deal with the return.

[Matt Bodycombe]

It's frustrating and i feel for you but see what the engine is like at 5000 miles before going for Skoda. I agree with everything said about not labouring the engine by changing up too early. Also you do need to give the engine the gun a couple of times a week after 1000 miles. Honest john recommends 4500 at least. It may feel like you are thrashing it but you are helping the motor loosen up.My dealer told me to ignore the running in guidelines in the manual and give the car some sympathetic stick from the off. An unbedded in engine will have more internal friction and hence worse mpg.

Good luck!

[R22JGB]

I have copied this post from my topic "1.6 TDi Cr fuel consumption" as the topic does not appear to be getting any more hits.

I have bought a SEAT Ibiza Sport 1.6TDi and am extremely disappointed with the fuel consumption. The car now has 5000 miles on it & the average consumption is less than 54 MPG, that is 18% and 12 MPG short of where it should be (65.7)

I have had the car back at the dealer and took with me documentary evidence that I can usually achieve the combined figure. I have spreadsheet data going back to 2002 and over 200,000 miles for my Picasso 2.0HDi, Fiesta 1.,6 TDCI and Passat 2.0 TDi, all three of the vehicles have been within a whisker of the manufacturers quoted combined figures.

My Ibiza is only 3 MPG better than the Passat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The dealer tells me he found no fault and under road test achieved 60MPG! he was unable to get close to the official figure!

I now will be writing to SEAT to officially complain about the poor consumption. I would also suggest those of you with poor consumption on the Fabia to hassle Skoda

The VW/SEAT/Skoda 1.6 TDi engine appears to struggle to achieve the quoted figures. I strongly suspect the cars used for their official tests were specially selected models!!!

Why not quote a more realistic figure? I'm sure it would save having a lot of disgruntled customers

[Guest]

Many thanks to everyone for their replies. As you say, they're going to have to improve an awful lot to get anywhere near what people expect to get and to improve beyond the previous generation. Personally, my car is current being looked at by the dealership and I'm considering 'backing it'. The mpg isn't getting any better (if anything worse) over the now 1500 miles and I'm not prepared to wait 10 or even 20,000 miles for it to get to their stated mpg. I know I can buy other cars that will do the mpg pretty much from day 1, my old Yaris included. Until they can make these diesels do the mpg within a sensible time of purchase (certainly no more than 5,000 miles), the claims are simply a con in my opinion. Promising something that will happen in the future is all well and good, but if it never happens, what does the customer do? In the meantime, I'm paying ever more for the diesel that, according to them, I shouldn't be buying. Unless a fault can be found and the mpg goes into the 50's, looks like I'm destined to be disappointed with the Skoda. Then, it'll be interesting seeing how they deal with the return.

Hi Mike, if you consumption is getting worse then it must be checked out. It sounds to me as if you have an air mass sensor not functioning properly and this is probably intermitent as it didn't show up on your last check. The car would not record this problem in the KAM in the ecu (at least I don't think it would). This, or another sensor problem is more likely than a mechanical problem. Incidentally,relating to some of the comments you listed in an earlier post about the way tests are carried out for fuel consumption purposes...I believe you have mis-understood what has been said to you Mike about the way these tests are carried out, or the person you were talking to was not properly informed or was just bulling you somewhat. All manufacturers carry out RESEARCH RUN TESTS (as opposed to the actual tests for publication) with the tyres over inflated with an inert gas pumped into them. The inert gas enables them to concentrate on other factors without having to worry about the tyre friction issue caused by the pressures going up and down. The inert gas used varies but doesn't expand as the tyre gets warm so the pressures remain the same. Manufacturers make repeated runs with differing setups for the engines and gearing, tyres and wheel and tyre sizes, fuel etc and this may go on for dozens of runs. Remember that no manufacturer guarantees the fuel consumption you will get. But yours should be getting a bit more now I believe...although it's still early days. Please can you post back with any findings your garage discovers. And good luck...it's frustrating for you I know.

[xman]

The inert gas enables them to concentrate on other factors without having to worry about the tyre friction issue caused by the pressures going up and down.

When did the laws of physics change? Have they ever heard of Charles law?

Edited 28 October, 2010 by xman

[raisbeck]

When did the laws of physics change? Have they ever heard of Charles law?

Thats so last year.......we all use the combined gas law

Aviation again...sorry. We use nitrogen as its more stable with temperature changes having less effect on pressure, so its less likely to go bang.....a good thing on aeroplanes. It also suffers less from air loss over time although in cars that's really a gimmick as your breathing 78% nitrogen anyway.

The big question is why Skoda have over inflated the mpg figures for the CR when they didnt do it for the PD engines. The test criteria are the same..... Could be getting Euro V compliance just kills economy and they dare not admit the new engine just isnt as efficient as the older PD engine.............jurys out.

Smacks of sharp practice to me

Edited 28 October, 2010 by raisbeck

[Guest]

Hi guys, yes...it's mainly Nitrogen that's used. It doesn't expand as it gets hotter so it means the manufacturers can inflate the tyres to what would be the normal hot running pressure. This enable them to refine their calculations more easily when doing the test and research runs. As far as I know it isn't allowed for the actual testing results that are published in manufacturers brochures.

I don't think Skoda are over stating the mpg figure for the 1.6cr engines. Most people are getting what the manufacturers expect you to get. That's proven by the happy customers Skoda and VW have who say they are getting good mpg's. However, no engine produces it full power and mpg right away, and there is no doubt that the euro V regs are making it more difficult for engines to produce the goods in the early days.

But here is food for thought...a few years ago I owned four Toyota Starlets in our business. All petrol engines, but the point I am about to make is the same as for any car...petrol or diesel. Each of our cars usually had the same driver and was assigned to that person as their personal car, but each car produced different mpg figures in spite of doing pretty much the same type of work. There were big differenced too in mpg. Occasionally, we would swap vehicles for various reasons. Then something quite amazing would happen. My car which always produced good mpg's would suddenly start returning really low mpg's in someone else's hands. Not because it was being thrashed, but because it was being driven in a different style, on a different journey, roads, to and from work each day etc etc. That guys car, which had never been very economical, in my hands produced perfectly normal fuel economy for me, and I don't hang about either, never have done. And I think that does prove a point of sorts. There are so many factors involved here that unless a fault is discovered, this is all pretty normal stuff and not very different to how it's always been. Forums are always frightening places to be. You would think the world was coming to an end if you relied upon just the forums. Word from my VW friends is that there are no problems with the 1.6cr engines and everyone (nearly!) is happy and this is coming from the techs.

Edited 28 October, 2010 by Estate Man

[dibujo]

In my opinion they should just build the car , take it out for a drive and publish the mpg they get without any of this inert gas etc. etc. malarkey. When I buy a new car I just expect to drive it normally without thrashing it for maybe 1000 miles and then just use it as normal.

[raisbeck]

Hi guys, yes...it's mainly Nitrogen that's used. It doesn't expand as it gets hotter

Doesn't expand 'as much as regular air'. Charles law still applies

[Black]

Gas laws do still apply for Nitrogen, it is after all a gas and the law is the law! I think it has a lower heat capacity so doesn't heat up as much.

[Guest]

Yes I knew after I'd posted you brainy guys would pick up on that! Yes the gas laws still apply, laws of physics can't change. But for car and motorcycle tyres you can barely measure any difference between hot and cold running pressures. My motorcycle had pure nitrogen in it's tyres for a while, it was great. Completely stable pressure all year round. Incidentally, I put it in to use the bike on track days. Lapping at 140mph plays havoc with tyre pressures unless you do, felt like a proper race guy!

[Guest]

In my opinion they should just build the car , take it out for a drive and publish the mpg they get without any of this inert gas etc. etc. malarkey. When I buy a new car I just expect to drive it normally without thrashing it for maybe 1000 miles and then just use it as normal.

I think you are maybe confused. That is what they do!

They also run fuel tests for the purpose of EU laws and consistency and accuracy of data, by following approved lab testing and publishing those figures. It has been deemed by the motor trade, manufacturers, most of the press, the EU commission tech guys that this is a very accurate way of producing real world figures. Most people do get similar figures to those published and these are much more realistic than the old steady 56mph figures we used to get (I could beat those easily which prolly means they were not that accurate).

This is a very interesting thread. It shows a diverse set of opinions and views, some informed, some not so informed. But all very interesting. This is what the forum is for. Isn't this a great site!

Edited 29 October, 2010 by Estate Man

[MikeHart]

I have copied this post from my topic "1.6 TDi Cr fuel consumption" as the topic does not appear to be getting any more hits.

I have bought a SEAT Ibiza Sport 1.6TDi and am extremely disappointed with the fuel consumption. The car now has 5000 miles on it & the average consumption is less than 54 MPG, that is 18% and 12 MPG short of where it should be (65.7)

I have had the car back at the dealer and took with me documentary evidence that I can usually achieve the combined figure. I have spreadsheet data going back to 2002 and over 200,000 miles for my Picasso 2.0HDi, Fiesta 1.,6 TDCI and Passat 2.0 TDi, all three of the vehicles have been within a whisker of the manufacturers quoted combined figures.

My Ibiza is only 3 MPG better than the Passat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The dealer tells me he found no fault and under road test achieved 60MPG! he was unable to get close to the official figure!

I now will be writing to SEAT to officially complain about the poor consumption. I would also suggest those of you with poor consumption on the Fabia to hassle Skoda

The VW/SEAT/Skoda 1.6 TDi engine appears to struggle to achieve the quoted figures. I strongly suspect the cars used for their official tests were specially selected models!!!

Why not quote a more realistic figure? I'm sure it would save having a lot of disgruntled customers

Hello,

Not sure whether this will help you or not. My car has just been in the dealers for a couple of days and was worked on by both them and Skoda remotely. They have installed a new revision of the engine management software that only became available for Skoda this week. Apparently, it's been out for VWs for a few weeks. Since getting my Fabia back, I have done only a relatively short distance and not my usual commutes (that'll come next week), but the mpg has risen from 48ish to 55-58; it varies a lot due to the relatively low mileage (30miles). This is an awful lot better than before and if it continues and hopefully even gets better on the longer runs, will make a large dent in the gap between what I was achieving and the quoted figures. I can imagine with some more mileage and bedding in, the mpg will then get better and over 60. Skoda did say it takes at least 5,000 miles for the main bedding in to occur and that's what they're seeing with their training cars in Milton Keynes.

Th car now appears to run much more freely, has more power and several other changes of note. The shift up/down indicator works very differently than before and requests an up shift much earlier once acceleration has ceased and you're cruising. Also, the surge issue (look this up against VW Polos) appears to be have been fixed. The engine management system will no longer automatically rev the engine should revs fall below 1000rpm.

So, all in all, quite a difference. Not sure I totally believe this is just the result of some tinkering and the new software, but that might just be me being suspicious. Either way, I'll monitor it next week on the longer runs and see what happens. If it stays good, I'd say the software change (which is the same for Seat and VWs as well) is a mandatory.

[dibujo]

I think you are maybe confused. That is what they do!

They also run fuel tests for the purpose of EU laws and consistency and accuracy of data, by following approved lab testing and publishing those figures. It has been deemed by the motor trade, manufacturers, most of the press, the EU commission tech guys that this is a very accurate way of producing real world figures. Most people do get similar figures to those published and these are much more realistic than the old steady 56mph figures we used to get (I could beat those easily which prolly means they were not that accurate).

This is a very interesting thread. It shows a diverse set of opinions and views, some informed, some not so informed. But all very interesting. This is what the forum is for. Isn't this a great site!

I'm not at all confused estateman. I am just pointing out that I expect to buy a car and just drive it and get decent performance and mpg without getting concerned about the different techniques of running in - if indeed they actually make any sense or difference.

If you want to get bogged down by piston rings cylinder bores etc. that is up to you.

[Guest]

That's really good news Mike...and yes do keep us all posted. Thanks.

[MikeHart]

That's really good news Mike...and yes do keep us all posted. Thanks.

I have a data logging device available as well. I did a trace for a 24hr period at the height of the problem and I think I'll do another on Tuesday when I go into work. Don't know if I'll see anything, but might be interesting. The difference in mpg is so great over the two day period and 80odd miles that I can't believe it's natural. Maybe the software really has made that much difference, I don't know, but I suspect something has been changed as well.

Has anyone else experienced the surge issue with this engine. (Might apply to others as well, I don't know). Essentially, due to the dual speed tickover (1000rpm ish when wheels turning and 750ish when completely stationary), if you end up in a gear that causes the engine rpm to be below 1000rpm, the engine management system will rev the engine without a request from the throttle. So, say you're approaching a roundabout and go down through the gears, ending in 3rd at 800rpm, when you release the brake, the car will surge forwards as the engine management system revs the engine to 1000rpm. Obviously, you shouldn't be in that gear at that engine speed, but if you're not used to the high gearing of the car, you can do it as I did. There's no vibration or shaking normally associated with an engine close to stall either, so you're not necessarily aware.

Well, the latest engine management software appears to not do this anymore. Can't be certain until I drive it some more, but an initial test looking for differences, seemed to suggest this wasn't true anymore. Not a big thing, but helps until you get used to the gearing.

[R22JGB]

Mike

I too have noticed this "surge" on my Seat when slowing for a roundabout, if you don't change down, when you lift off the brake the car seems to accelerate without touching the throttle!

I'm pleased to hear of your software update, it seems to have done the trick for you. I now need to persuade SEAT to update mine. No matter how I pussy foot about in it fuel consumption is only around 3 mpg better than my 2.0 TDi Passat!

One thing I have noticed is the DPF regenerations, I seem to have had 8 up to 3879 miles but none since then, my car now has 5400 miles on it (since 2 September)

I must admit to being a little confused by the tickover, 800 rpm with the handbrake on, take it off & roll ever so gently and tickover increases to 1000rpm. Why? I'm guessing it may be to increase revs to prevent a stall should load from the power steering have an effect?

Edited 29 October, 2010 by TSIDSG?

[MikeHart]

Mike

I too have noticed this "surge" on my Seat when slowing for a roundabout, if you don't change down, when you lift off the brake the car seems to accelerate without touching the throttle!

I'm pleased to hear of your software update, it seems to have done the trick for you. I now need to persuade SEAT to update mine. No matter how I pussy foot about in it fuel consumption is only around 3 mpg better than my 2.0 TDi Passat!

One thing I have noticed is the DPF regenerations, I seem to have had 8 up to 3879 miles but none since then, my car now has 5400 miles on it (since 2 September)

I must admit to being a little confused by the tickover, 800 rpm with the handbrake on, take it off & roll ever so gently and tickover increases to 1000rpm. Why? I'm guessing it may be to increase revs to prevent a stall should load from the power steering have an effect?

Hello again,

I haven't fully tested the software update on mine for this (only done today!!), but as far as I can tell, it's stopped. Seems to leave the revs where they are and simply vibrates a bit. Much like other cars do. Mine was regenerating every 250 ish miles early doors and then became more frequent. So, I probably had 7 or 8 in 1500 miles!! Mind you, I think the distance I cover and the driving conditions are such that the right conditions for a DPF regeneration seem to occur at the end of the journey and I'm not sure they all finished before the car was turned off. Might explain the number.

Not sure why the two stage tickover is there. As the engine can quite happily turnover at about 750rpm, I assume it's preparing the car for movement and getting the revs up a bit before load is applied. Some sort of eco settings maybe? Don't know.

As to your mpg. Skoda suggest mpg won't improve a lot till 5000 miles and then it should keep getting better. The dealership also spoke about revving the engine quite a bit (as per Estate Man) and 'giving it the beans'. I must admit the manual is a little confusing on that. All it talks about is not exceeding 75% of maximum revs for the first 1000km. Then, easing it up a bit. Now, I would have thought most people would think that means driving quietly initially, but as explained elsewhere in this thread, revving is also required. I now tend to cruise along the dual carriageways at 70 in 5th and then use roundabouts/junctions to give it the higher revs. Hopefully, that'll be a decent mix of the two. Due to the long legged nature of the gearbox and the high ratios used, getting the revs up can be interesting as 3500 rpm in 3rd is a lot faster than the same for other cars. I need to stay in lower gears much longer. No hope of doing 3500 rpm in 4th!! At least, not complying with the law...